First, the Executive Director of UN Watch castigates the council for being blatantly anti-Israel while being silent on the Islamic violence in over 100 countries.
And here’s Newt’s evaluation, including this mention from The Washington Post:
For all its faults, the previous U.N. commission occasionally discussed
and condemned the regimes most responsible for human rights crimes,
such as those in Belarus and Burma. China used to feel compelled to
burnish its record before the annual meeting. The new council, in
contrast, has so far taken action on only one country, which has
dominated the debate at both of its regular meetings and been the sole
subject of two extraordinary sessions: Israel.
Again, the Exec Director of UN Watch on Canadian news, praising Canada for it’s role on the Human Rights Council, but urges that it can do more by not being silent on some issues:
Here’s more on how the UN Human Rights Council has failed to confront the lies and murders of the Sudan government and the Islamic liars in the Sudan
I agree with the UNwatch speaker, though his speech alone would have been better without all the preceding propaganda captions. I already saw this linked on OneGoodMove.com. I believe that human rights are being ignored because to some of the members on the council (Assad, Ahamadinejad, Khaddafi, etc…) human rights is not a pressing issue. In fact, human rights issues are a road block to some of their policies.
In a similar vein, I don't think Seeker cares much about human rights either. His aim in posting this was more to show his disdain for the UN as an organization rather than to point out human rights abuses and hypocrisy. I have a feeling Evangelicals place Israel prominently in their concerns because of the rapture. Human rights is a secondary concern to Israel for the right wing. In that Left Behind Video game, the forces of evil was the UN :)
Actually, there are some doctrinal reasons why many Christians don't trust the UN.
One is due to the prophetic literature that talks about a one world government in the end times that ends up persecuting Christians. To some extent, they mistrust any global government because of this prophecy.
But also, they mistrust such groups because of the tendency for man to try to omit God, and focus only on human unity, which in effect, is rising up against God. This is what the Tower of Babel was about. But the reason this is bad is not just because God is offended, but because immeasurable cruelty results when man is given power – ultimate power corrupts, as we have seen throughout history.
A third reason why Christians mistrust the UN is because there is a strong thread throughout scripture regarding national sovereignty, which is threatened by such central bodies. In fact, right now, many countries in the EU are suffering under the burdens of the centralized government there, which is to be expected, not just because everyone has to sacrifice a little for the whole, but because such organizations inevitably try to centralize as much power as possible, and usurp national sovereignty.
I think the UN has done some good work. I don't think it's the antichrist's organization, or anything like that. However, I do think that we as Christians have a responsibility to support Israel (but not uncritically) against the forces of evil (read "Islam"), to preserve national sovereignty for all nations, and to hold these international bodies to their mission, promises, and commitments.
OK, I will bite…since I a) know how the UN works from first-hand knowledge, understand the rise of the nation state, and c) have closely studied the creation of the European Commission post WWII under DeGaulle and its transformation into what is now the EU.
So, with that, here we go Seeker…
UN is because there is a strong thread throughout scripture regarding national sovereignty
While I don’t doubt there is a notion of nation hood and personal identification with a given region within the bible, the concept of a Nation State, nationalism and sovereignty goes back to the Middle Ages within Europe with the rise of Kings and the nation states within Europe (post Christ). So, I take issue with that statement on the pure grounds that a Nation State with Sovereignty is a rather recent occurrence (an no, I do not count the Roman Empire or the Greeks within that equation since they do not embody all the pillars of what we call a Nation State)
In fact, right now, many countries in the EU are suffering under the burdens of the centralized government there, which is to be expected, not just because everyone has to sacrifice a little for the whole, but because such organizations inevitably try to centralize as much power as possible, and usurp national sovereignty.
Seeker, I know an awful lot about the EC and its successor the EU. I am not sure you really do, so forgive me for tagging you on this.
While there are economic issues with integration, those issues are to be expected as it was in the United States when we moved to a centralized monetary and economic system away from the States.
The issues within the EU are nothing more than the growing pains of integration into a single political entity and evolution of several dozen nation states into one nation state with different cultures, languages, and yes, religions represented. While you claim this usurps national sovereignty, I argue this is no different than the admission of US territories into the Union or the unification of the City States within Italy into a single state during the Renaissance.
In fact the formation of the EC post-World War II was a recognition by the European countries that the time of Empires and Colonization were over and that it was in their people’s best interest to participate as once central economy against an increasingly Free Market system.
I can go on and on and on on this topic… I spent two years doing my graduate thesis on the EU, but it will take so much space in this post that no one will get a word in edge wise.
You can fear the UN and the EU all you want, but that is the reality with the EU. Claims of suffering are inaccurate and represent an outsiders view looking inward towards the EU.
I do think that we as Christians have a responsibility to support Israel (but not uncritically) against the forces of evil (read “Islam”)
I think we have done far enough. The British through their loss of Imperial control in WWII left a vaccuum within Palestine and a plan to create two states. (See wikipedia history) The United States sold arms to the fledgling Israel during their 1948 War of Independence against the Arabs, and we gave them the Atomic Bomb amongst other Weapons sales.
Given this context and the amount of military power Israel has in the region, I think they can more than adequately defend themselves without our meddling. Worse come to the worse, they will use the Bomb (which has nuclear fissionable material originating from Hanford).
preserve national sovereignty for all nations, and to hold these international bodies to their mission, promises, and commitments
While in principle, I would agree with these words, I truly believe that your concept of National Sovereignty and Nation State is really skewed to mean National Sovereinty as it pertains to our interests (US and our allies – with heavy weight of that of the United States). That is fundamentally flawed logic and an incorrect interpretation of the concept of Nation States and Sovereinty.
In reference to the UN: to hold these international bodies to their mission, promises, and commitments
That’s all well in good, but the United States needs to hold itself to the same standard with regard to its participation and behavior with nation states within the UN. To say the UN disregards sovereignty is laughable when factored into the following facts:
1) The United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China wrote the UN Charter and defined the rules. Of those signatories the US, Britain, and France were the principle authors in defining the rules for sanctioning nations, taking action, etc. Those articles in the UN Charter are very defined are specific…and to this day (with the exception of the US and Israel) are followed. No trampling on sovereinty.
2) The United States has for the past 40 years chosen to use the United Nations as its tool for infringing on National Sovereinty, or to flagrantly disregard International Law (of which it is a Signatory to or was a principle author of).
Seeker, so while it is a Christians job to do just what you say, to use the UN as an example of overstepping sovereignty is just plain goofy. I don’t suppose you have even read the UN Charter??? Perhaps you should. It is very specific about what can and cannot be done and outlines exactly how the UN is supposed to work.
If you don’t like what is in it, I suggest you blame the United States of America. We pushed for its creation after WWII, pushed a lot of the treatises in it, and hosted the Chartering Meeting in San Francisco.
– Silver
OWNED! :) Great points Silver.
Another thing, While Newt Gingrich decries the failures of UNHCR the predecessor of the current Human Rights Commission as well as the current one, where was the United States?
Nowhere. During UN resolution process to create the UN Human Rights Council, the United States completely obtained from any debate nor provided anything constructive towards the creation of the new UN Human Rights Council.
Instead, the United States voted against the creation of the commission:
"The United Nations General Assembly passed GA resolution 60/251 on 15 March 2006, which created the new human rights body, with the approval of 170 members of the 191-nation Assembly. Only the United States, the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Israel voted against the Council's creation, claiming that it would have too little power and that there were insufficient safeguards to prevent human (source wikipedia)"
Moreover, after passage the GW Bush declined to seek a seat on the Council stating that:
"the United States would not seek a seat on the Council, saying it would be more effective from the outside. He did pledge, however, to support the Council financially. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We will work closely with partners in the international community to encourage the council to address serious cases of human rights abuse in countries such as Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, and North Korea." (Source: Wikipedia on US Position)
This marks the one of the first times in history that the United States has not been a member or represented in the Human Rights Commission since the founding of the United Nations in 1945.
Its all well in good to criticize the commission of being ineffective, but if you are not a member of the very commission you are criticizing how do you expect to effect change. The Bush Administration's position and action towards human rights independent of the UN, particularly in Darfur has been a joke and that is being polite.
Additionally, if the US and we US Christians want to play in the game, we should be willing to also shine the light on our own human rights violations within this country.
– Silver
While I don’t doubt there is a notion of nation hood and personal identification with a given region within the bible, the concept of a Nation State, nationalism and sovereignty goes back to the Middle Ages within Europe with the rise of Kings and the nation states within Europe (post Christ). So, I take issue with that statement on the pure grounds that a Nation State with Sovereignty is a rather recent occurrence…
I am actually not referring to the modern version, but the biblical account of Israel, which of course, predates your examples. And while you may want to adhere to some narrower, modern definition of “nation state,” when I speak of biblical conservatives and their view, which I was relating (and not my view specifically), is that Sovereignty was exemplified, and given from the Supreme Sovereign (God) to Israel. Submitting to the often cruel and inferior laws of surrounding nations was something that God commanded them not to do, i.e. he expected them to be sovereign.
Seeker, I know an awful lot about the EC and its successor the EU. I am not sure you really do, so forgive me for tagging you on this.
You are forgiven ;) However, despite your superior knowledge, I think you have some rose-colored glasses on. Oh sure, you could trot out a list of things that the EU and UN do wrong, but I think your bias towards them makes you a little insensitive to some of their more colossal failures. I am not saying that the EU has really failed yet (unlike the UN), and I was not really criticizing them. However, the EU is another potential horror story of corruption, usurpation of national sovereignty, and perhaps even totalitarian control. But again, I was merely highlighting why conservatives mistrust the UN.
I don’t want to get off track discussing the EU, but since you accused me of having an “outsider’s” opinion, let me assure you that I am reading what insiders say.
The issues within the EU are nothing more than the growing pains of integration into a single political entity and evolution of several dozen nation states into one nation state with different cultures, languages, and yes, religions represented…You can fear the UN and the EU all you want, but that is the reality with the EU. Claims of suffering are inaccurate and represent an outsiders view looking inward towards the EU.
Actually, I regularly read the Brussels Journal, a conservative European blog which regularly points out problems with the EU. I am not taking an outsider’s opinion on it. Rather than just the monetary issues (which are in some ways very UNLIKE the expected and usual problems), not to mention the nearly insurmountable language barriers, the real problem is enforced tolerance for Islamic radicalism, and the erosion of western values into a “Eurabia.” Please read the following posts as examples:
Eurabia (wikipedia)
Eurocrat empire building (Washington Times)
This article in an accusation from a former member of the EC that the behind the scenes power plays are actually not like something democratic, but something more like the USSR.
There’s plenty more where those came from, but let me return to your defense of the UN and it’s failed Human Rights Commission.
The United States sold arms to the fledgling Israel during their 1948 War of Independence against the Arabs, and we gave them the Atomic Bomb amongst other Weapons sales. Given this context and the amount of military power Israel has in the region, I think they can more than adequately defend themselves without our meddling.
You think we have done enough, but that does not mean we should stop supporting them. Just look at the map. They are surrounded, countries deep, with hostile arab nations, on their little plot of land. The Palestinians could live happily in any one of the surrounding nations with their Islamic “brothers,” who daily proclaim their desire to “wipe Israel off the map.” However, they (perhaps rightfully) demand their own homeland. I am not begrudging them that, but the difference here is that Israel is not bent on expansion or of killing of the Muslims and Arabs, while the converse is certainly untrue.
If you think only military power is what’s needed for Israel’s self defense and peace in the region, you are incorrect. They also need allies to support diplomatic and economic measures against their many foes.
your concept of National Sovereignty and Nation State is really skewed to mean National Sovereignty as it pertains to our interests (US and our allies – with heavy weight of that of the United States). That is fundamentally flawed logic and an incorrect interpretation of the concept of Nation States and Sovereinty.
You assume incorrectly. I think that the main sovereign rights that the EU, and to some extent, the UN, threaten are
– our rights to control immigration
– our rights to maintain our traditional culture and language, where they do not affect human rights
But the real problem with these organizations is not just that they threaten national sovereignty, nor that they are a financial burden on successful states that have had the forethought, diligence, and luck to be successfull, but their currently liberal bias, practicing a type of “moral inversion” that penalizes the comparatively petty crimes of Israel and the US, in terms of lives lost, to their almost total laxity, if not conscious inaction towards the horrific human toll waged by totalitarian (and mostly Islamic) countries. Where is their indignance over hundreds of thousands of murders? Instead, they want to make resolutions about Israel? Who ever heard of such an outrageous injustice in the name of multiculturalism?
to hold these international bodies to their mission, promises, and commitments
Again, my argument about Sovereignty was just one reason why conservatives mistrust such bodies, and not the core of my argument. The real current issue around sovereignty is around immigration, and the REAL problem I am mentioning is the pathetic record of the current Human Rights Council.